For now, though, Markstrom's numbers still say he's at least an average NHL goaltender, i.e. one of the twenty best in the entire world. I suspect the fact that the last 3 goalies you saw a lot of were Luongo, Schneider, and Miller may be distorting your sense of what is reasonable to expect.

Exsactly.

And for all the crap Cloutier receives, I remember checking back in the day that his stats typically had him around 15th in the league, ie an average NHL starting goaltender.

Neither Cloutier, Markström or Nilsson is (or was) a Vezina candidate, but all three have shown themselves good enough to tend goal in the best hockey league there is, and do so at roughly the league average level.

Luongo, Schneider and Miller were better than that, but we cannot expect to always have one of the ten best goalies in a 30+ team league. It'd be nice to have it, but the question is if it would really be worth the extra cost and cap space during a rebuild.

None of them let in so many first shot goals. Markstrom is a backup goalie capable of giving you 20-30 games a year.

But imho wins is more of a team statistic even if it is widely used as a goalie stat.
I think saves percentage is a more neutral assessment of a goalie, even if it may give a slight disadvantage to goalies on stellar teams that face so few shots that they grow cold in between them. In this statistic Markström and Nilsson look quite OK. This is the all time top ten for Vancouver:

What this basically says is that when facing 100 shots, Schneider would let in 7, Luongo 8 and Markström 9.
There is a difference, but it's not as huge as some of you would make it seem.

Once again, Marky Mark and Nilsson are not superstar goalies, but they are sort of league average goalies.
It is not our weakest spot. I maintain that it is the blue line that is of greatest concern, and it's really no use taking on the cost of a top ten or even top three goalie if you are going to play them behind the crap defence we muster at the moment.

Solve the blue line problem first, then address the goalie issue.
(Well, if it hasn't already been done with the goalie prospects we have in the system...)

Last edited by Per on Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

But imho wins is more of a team statistic even if it is widely used as a goalie stat.
I think saves percentage is a more neutral assessment of a goalie, even if it may give a slight disadvantage to goalies on stellar teams that face so few shots that they grow cold in between them. In this statistic Markström and Nilsson look quite OK. This is the all time top ten for Vancouver:

What this basically says is that when facing 100 shots, Schneider would let in 7, Luongo 8 and Markström 9.
There is a difference, but it's not as huge as some of you would make it seem.

Once again, Marky Mark and Nilsson are not superstar goalies, but they are sort of league average goalies.
It is not our weakest spot. I maintain that it is the blue line that is of greatest concern, and it's really no use taking on the cost of a top ten or even top three goalie if you are going to play them behind the crap defence we muster at the moment.

Solve the blue line problem first, then address the goalie issue.
(Well, if it hasn't already been done with the goalie prospects we have in the system...)

With the exception of Irbe, all of those goalies played in the modern era of butterfly/hybrid positioning, regular goaltending coaches, team defensive systems, and over-sized equipment. It’s no surprise that our all time top 10 is a who’s who of goaltenders who played for the Canucks in the last 10-15 years. In fact only Auld, Clouts, and Irbe, played for the Canucks before the 2004 lockout. Ironically only Clouts and Irbe played for us during the dead puck era.

Once again, Marky Mark and Nilsson are not superstar goalies, but they are sort of league average goalies.
It is not our weakest spot. I maintain that it is the blue line that is of greatest concern, and it's really no use taking on the cost of a top ten or even top three goalie if you are going to play them behind the crap defence we muster at the moment.

Solve the blue line problem first, then address the goalie issue.
(Well, if it hasn't already been done with the goalie prospects we have in the system...)

I mostly agree -- blueline first. But top 15 goalies are rarely on the market; you can find middle tier starters there, but not top 15 *proven* guys, not guys that can take a below average team into the playoffs. Maybe that's who Miller was and what Miller did 5 years ago with the Canucks, but I think that the players on that team were overall league average and also had a lot of experience.

Every year or so it seems a goalie that doesn't have top 15 in his pedigree will break through. (Hellebuyck last year and I suspect he was a mediocre year away from the Jets trying something else). The trick is to find that goalie in a system jam; the problem is that its really hard to tell who has this potential. And if they are thrown out there to face the number of shots and number of high quality shots the Canucks give up, then you can easily miss it. We're not missing anything with Marky, though. His ceiling is league average. He has too many fundamentals breakdowns and/or lacks mental discipline to be better. (That was Cloutier's problem, too -- and we picked up Cloutier as a "system jam maybe this guy can be a top 15 guy but probably not deal).

More likely, though, it has to come from within.

It is rare that a goalie comes up through the system with the skills, mental discipline, athleticism, and stamina to project as a top 15 goalie throughout their time as a prospect. Schneider was this guy, though the confidence is cracking the past couple of years. Demko may be as well.

My observation of the past 2 years has been that the goaltending decisions have always been reactive - Marky plays well, gets the next start, then the next, then plays horribly and Anders goes in. Anders plays well, gets the next start, plays horribly then back to Marky.

The problem is, when either goalie plays well/stands on his head, the Canucks will still only win 50% of the time. So if you stick with one of the goalies until he stinks, you'll have lost 50% of the games plus the stinker.

Now, Anders has played 2 good games in a row. To me, he is due for a stinker. I'd rather see Anders sit out this game, when he's coming off a good performance, and hopefully skip his next stinker. Since this reactive, play-the-hot-hand system isn't working, I'd rather see a more clear schedule/rotation.

When the Canucks were pumping Schneider in 2011-12, I got the sense that his starts were mapped out in the off-season. He seemed to only start against weak teams for the entire year (I broke it down in an old thread, I'm not going to dig through the game logs and standings again). The result was Schneider's best year for SV% and Win%, and a President's Trophy.

I find the best goalies to acquire are youngerish developed goalies stuck behind a top tier #1 who has a big contract, consequently he's locked in for the long haul and the younger goalie requires a bigger contract that the team cannot afford.